Example of Stem Cell Research

About: Cell Transplants Restore Sight in Blind Mice


source: washingtonpost.com
... they said the new study showed for the first time that light-detecting retina cells -- which in this case were taken from other animals but which scientists have begun to grow from human embryonic stem cells -- can orient themselves properly after being injected into a blind eye, connect to other nerve cells and communicate appropriately with visual centers in the brain.
...  from a summary of the original article in the Journal Nature ...
source: news@nature.com  Blind mice see after cell transplant Study suggests newborn cells best for transfer.

Using a technique that may one day help blind people to see, researchers have shown in mice that retinal cells from newborns transplanted into the eyes of blind adults wire up correctly and help them to detect light.

The finding challenges conventional biological thinking, because it shows that cells that have stopped dividing are better for transplantation than the stem cells that normally make new cells.
....
Transplanted mature rod cells did not work, nor did fully immature retinal stem cells, Ali's team found.
...
From mice to man

It would be difficult to obtain equivalent human cells for transplantation, because they would have to come from fetuses in the first or second trimester of pregnancy. But Maclaren says that it may soon be possible to grow the correct retinal cells from adult stem cells or embryonic stem cells.
Related information: hereherehere, here, here.

source: Embryonic stem cells can repair eyes, company says
"For example, we injected the cells into mice with damaged retinas due to diabetes or other eye injury. The cells (labeled green) migrated to the injured eye, and incorporated and lit-up the entire damaged vasculature. The cells are really smart, and amazingly, knew not to do anything in uninjured eyes."

Tags

  1. stem cells
  2. biology
  3. retinitis pigmentosa
  4. cells
  5. church and state
  6. rational inquiry

Comments


Seth says
This item is about implanting cells to cure RP ... the above info appears to be a distraction from that topic.  This is an interesting train of research on a topic that is of particular interest to me.  If i  have missed something regarding this particular research then please call it to my attention.

Seth says

Mark de LA says
Obama & the Abortion Lobby finally got their wish on embryonic stemcell research. Now, can the Obamadoggle yield any results? Prolly not.
source: ...
..Keep in mind that, although President Bush limited federal funding of embryonic stem cell research to a few existing stem cell colonies, he did not make such research illegal. In fact, embryonic stem cell research has been funded with both private funding and state funding — not to mention that scientists around the world have been engaging in embryonic stem cell research.

..The reason that the embryonic stem cell research community has been so vocal in advocating for federal funding of its work is that private investors virtually abandoned them in the late 1990s. Private investors have learned that there simply is little hope that money invested in embryonic stem cell research will produce a financial return anytime soon. Taxpayer money, on the other hand, is a much easier thing to obtain and spend in unaccountable ways — so that’s the game being played by the embryonic stem cell research community.

..Meanwhile, the public is fed lines about “cures” for terrible diseases and conditions being just around the corner if only federal funding is made available — as if money spent automatically translates into to cures discovered. It doesn’t.

...


Seth says
Well i don't think it's a good practice for scientific research to become a partisan political football with non scientists deriding the virtues of a specific research path which they know nothing about.  Nor do i think it is better to destroy cells rather than allowing them to be donated to research.  Mixing metaphysics with partisan politics is a bad idea.  But hey bro ... go for it, if you really think it is the right way to go.

Mark de LA says
seth 2009-03-10 10:09:05 4933
Well i don't think it's a good practice for scientific research to become a partisan political football with non scientists deriding the virtues of a specific research path which they know nothing about.  Nor do i think it is better to destroy cells rather than allowing them to be donated to research.  Mixing metaphysics with partisan politics is a bad idea.  But hey bro ... go for it, if you really think it is the right way to go.
Well, science & materialists can't find a soul or spirit so in matters of the mystery of life I would trust more those who can. If you read the whole source article you would have noticed that the record of science in curing cancer is fairly dismal given the public & private investment of $100B+
ibid: ... There has been some progress made on a few cancers — such as childhood leukemia and testicular cancer — but even where success has occurred mystery still abounds. Treatments can work but not always. When treatments do work, no one really knows why. Often treatment success is only temporary. And the personal and financial costs of all this are appallingly high.
...The challenge with stem cells is teaching stem cells to grow into tissue that is useful & then again teaching them to stop - otherwise you have just re-invented cancer again!



Mark de LA says
seth 2009-03-10 13:34:32 4933
source: M above
Well, science & materialists can't find a soul or spirit so in matters of the mystery of life I would trust more those who can.

Well i don't trust Fox news to give me the straight talk about scientific research either.  Your musings would have been taken more seriously had they been backed up with actual scientific papers.

But what really seems strange to me is that if religious activists object to killing doomed embryos, then why don't they object just as strenuously to the fertility procedures that create them to start with.  To me, sans that strenuous objection, their efforts are unmasked as hypocrisy and just an excuse for religion to meddle in government - something that i had though you objected to yourself. 


Well, go over to junkscience.com & Steve Milloy who has been exposing junk science & the fallicy of statistical hysteria for a long, long time!  Go debate him on the subject. I suspect you will come out on the short end of the stick! I am also against the preponderance of the religion of materialism & pseudo science in government as well.  I am not fond of fertility procedures such as produced Octomom either! Obama while approving government funding for embryonic stem cell research also said no cloning.  From what ethics or morality source was he deriving that objection?

Seth says
source: M above
I am also against the preponderance of the religion of materialism & pseudo science in government as well.
Well, your hypercharged semantics aside, there is no doubt that the US government is predominantly secular. That stems from the wise intent our founding fathers and is burned into the first amendment of the constitution. Are you against the first amendment as well?

Mark de LA says
seth 2009-03-10 15:00:40 4933
source: M above
I am also against the preponderance of the religion of materialism & pseudo science in government as well.
Well, your hypercharged semantics aside, there is no doubt that the US government is predominantly secular. That stems from the wise intent our founding fathers and is burned into the first amendment of the constitution. Are you against the first amendment as well?
You can begin to strike your hyper-hyping as you begin to withdraw your head from your nether orifice, no penalty is required!  The founders of this great country were religious. John Adams:
... John Adams quote "We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and true religion. Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." 
... Other John Adams quotes here on religion There is nothing preventing religious views & guidance in your choices - the first ammendment is about establishing a state religion like King George had & Iran & a lot of the governments in the Middle East have now. To do otherwise is to establish science, materialism or atheism as a state religion.  I ask again what allowed Obama to choose no cloning for reproduction & yet use embryonic stem cells for science:  why not both or neither?


Seth says
(1) Being religious has nothing to do with legislating religious doctrine into the law of the land.

(2) The problem with faith based rules in our government is that different sects have different beliefs. You cannot legislate in favor of one to the determent of the other and serve all the people.

(3) I realize that conservatives have been propagating the meme that Secularism is a religion; but it is not.  For a movement to be a religion is must be based on faith.  The absence of faith is not a faith.

Mark de LA says
seth 2009-03-11 10:24:00 4933
(1) Being religious has nothing to do with legislating religious doctrine into the law of the land.

(2) The problem with faith based rules in our government is that different sects have different beliefs. You cannot legislate in favor of one to the determent of the other and serve all the people.

(3) I realize that conservatives have been propagating the meme that Secularism is a religion; but it is not.  For a movement to be a religion is must be based on faith.  The absence of faith is not a faith.
You're wrong in #3: To be a materialist or a scientist who is a materialist you have to have faith that all there is can be perceived by the 5 material senses. You may also be co-mingling belief & faith. To be an atheist you almost have to be insane!
You're wrong in #2: in that nobody is legislating faith based rules. You have to derive your morals & guidance from some place. As yet we don't have big brother inside our heads to prevent us using whatever guidance we want.  (You still didn't answer the twice-asked question of where Obama got his morals & guidance to ban cloning but take the fruits of abortion & give them to science - perhaps he just took a poll, eh?)
You're correct in #1: but, nobody is trying to do that!


Mark de LA says
There are those that say that Liberalism is a religion & that abortion is their sacrament! I won't go that far though, I say that abortion is their pornography.

Seth says
source: Seth above
(2) The problem with faith based rules in our government is that different sects have different beliefs. You cannot legislate in favor of one to the determent of the other and serve all the people.
source: M above
You're wrong in #2: in that nobody is legislating faith based rules. You have to derive your morals & guidance from some place. As yet we don't have big brother inside our heads to prevent us using whatever guidance we want.  (You still didn't answer the twice-asked question of where Obama got his morals & guidance to ban cloning but take the fruits of abortion & give them to science - perhaps he just took a poll, eh?)
Yes, your must have some method of deriving morals and guidance.  In a secular context you choose those rules which are best for the human race.  You choose those values which every rational human would agree are beneficial. 

[I whited out those parts of your comments which are being covered elsewhere.]


Seth says
souce: Seth above
(1) Being religious has nothing to do with legislating religious doctrine into the law of the land.
source: M in response to (1)
You're correct in #1: but, nobody is trying to do that!
Passing laws against abortion or stem cell research is based on the belief that human life begins at conception.  That is a doctrine that is based upon faith.

[This is a rational train of though.  I will continue it only if the well know rules of rational argumentation are followed.]

Seth says
source: Seth above
(3) I realize that conservatives have been propagating the meme that Secularism is a religion; but it is not.  For a movement to be a religion is must be based on faith.  The absence of faith is not a faith. ...

source: M in response
You're wrong in #3: To be a materialist or a scientist who is a materialist you have to have faith that all there is can be perceived by the 5 material senses. You may also be co-mingling belief & faith. To be an atheist you almost have to be insane!
This sentence remaining might be true as stated.  However to be a scientist you do not need to believe in materialism.  Being a scientist tells us what methods you use.  There is no part of the scientific method which involves what the scientist believes.

[Confusion and name calling whited out]

Mark de LA says
seth 2009-03-12 04:44:52 4933
souce: Seth above
(1) Being religious has nothing to do with legislating religious doctrine into the law of the land.
source: M in response to (1)
You're correct in #1: but, nobody is trying to do that!
Passing laws against abortion or stem cell research is based on the belief that human life begins at conception.  That is a doctrine that is based upon faith.

[This is a rational train of though.  I will continue it only if the well know rules of rational argumentation are followed.]
In most cases 9 months later after conception out comes a (most of the time) human baby! Unless someone kills it !


Mark de LA says
seth 2009-03-12 04:57:05 4933
source: Seth above
(2) The problem with faith based rules in our government is that different sects have different beliefs. You cannot legislate in favor of one to the determent of the other and serve all the people.
source: M above
You're wrong in #2: in that nobody is legislating faith based rules. You have to derive your morals & guidance from some place. As yet we don't have big brother inside our heads to prevent us using whatever guidance we want.  (You still didn't answer the twice-asked question of where Obama got his morals & guidance to ban cloning but take the fruits of abortion & give them to science - perhaps he just took a poll, eh?)
Yes, your must have some method of deriving morals and guidance.  In a secular context you choose those rules which are best for the human race.  You choose those values which every rational human would agree are beneficial. 

[I whited out those parts of your comments which are being covered elsewhere.]


I am ignoring yellow highlights however clever you think they are - .

Mark de LA says
seth 2009-03-12 05:06:37 4933
source: Seth above
(3) I realize that conservatives have been propagating the meme that Secularism is a religion; but it is not.  For a movement to be a religion is must be based on faith.  The absence of faith is not a faith. ...

source: M in response
You're wrong in #3: To be a materialist or a scientist who is a materialist you have to have faith that all there is can be perceived by the 5 material senses. You may also be co-mingling belief & faith. To be an atheist you almost have to be insane!
This sentence remaining might be true as stated.  However to be a scientist you do not need to believe in materialism.  Being a scientist tells us what methods you use.  There is no part of the scientific method which involves what the scientist believes.

[Confusion and name calling whited out]
You have to be a materialist otherwise empiricism doesn't work; otherwise you don't have all the facts. To be an abortionist you have to be a materialist otherwise you are a deluded murderer!

Mark de LA says
Do you know the difference between faith & belief? Prolly not!

Seth says
MR 2009-03-12 08:12:13 4933
seth 2009-03-12 05:06:37 4933
source: Seth above
(3) I realize that conservatives have been propagating the meme that Secularism is a religion; but it is not.  For a movement to be a religion is must be based on faith.  The absence of faith is not a faith. ...

source: M in response
You're wrong in #3: To be a materialist or a scientist who is a materialist you have to have faith that all there is can be perceived by the 5 material senses. You may also be co-mingling belief & faith. To be an atheist you almost have to be insane!
This sentence remaining might be true as stated.  However to be a scientist you do not need to believe in materialism.  Being a scientist tells us what methods you use.  There is no part of the scientific method which involves what the scientist believes.

[Confusion and name calling whited out]
You have to be a materialist otherwise empiricism doesn't work; otherwise you don't have all the facts. To be an abortionist you have to be a materialist otherwise you are a deluded murderer!
I had though that we could enter a rational discussion where argument followed the generally accepted rules of reasoning.  But once you have decided, based solely on faith, that legal abortion is murder, apparently all reason is going to be thrown out the window.  Since my only reason to continue the discussion was to see if you and i could follow the rules of reasonable dicourse, i am not out of here.

Seth says
FYI your comments of 2009-03-10 16:40:29 and 2009-03-11 10:38:05 raised some interesting points and i had though that we could discuss them rationally;  hence my attempt in 2009-03-11 10:24:00 to isolate the interesting questions you raised. 

Seth says
MR 2009-03-12 08:32:35 4933
Shoot yourself! I'm sure your rules for rational suit your beliefs.
They are not my rules, they are rules that have been universally accepted for rational arguments.  Here is a good example page delineating them, but we could agree on any of the many such pages under here.  There is so much irrational, fallacious and mean spirited argumentation going on at fastblogit and in general on the blogosphere, that i though it might be refreshing to have little pools of discussion where it was disallowed. 

Mark de LA says
Again ad hominem is going to terminate this discussion in the RWG.

Seth says
MR 2009-03-12 09:37:21 4933
seth 2009-03-12 08:56:37 4933
MR 2009-03-12 08:32:35 4933
Shoot yourself! I'm sure your rules for rational suit your beliefs.
They are not my rules, they are rules that have been universally accepted for rational arguments.  Here is a good example page delineating them, but we could agree on any of the many such pages under here.  There is so much irrational, fallacious and mean spirited argumentation going on at fastblogit and in general on the blogosphere, that i though it might be refreshing to have little pools of discussion where it was disallowed. 
Logic is obviously GIGO. Rational is whatever you can argue to support your position. Neither is a litmus test for truth; however relative you might believe truth to be. The phrase mean-spirited is just liberal-speak; thinking it's there then don't do it anymore - I don't. The RWG is how the low-priced meat based computer is programmed. Universally accepted is just an ethos of argumentation like saying we with a mouse in your back pocket.

Agreeing to only use rational argument is just to agree to use rules that help you avoid bull shit and help the discussion converge.  No it does not guarantee truth but it gives you a chance and at least establishes common purpose.  Without it you have just chaos and useless fighting.  We have been here before.  So fine, use fastblogit for your own juvenile titillation if you want.  I had though that our dialogue was worth more than that ... apparently i was mistaken.


Seth says
source: MR above, quotes Krauthammer ...
I suggested the bright line prohibiting the deliberate creation of human embryos solely for the instrumental purpose of research -- a clear violation of the categorical imperative not to make a human life (even if only a potential human life) a means rather than an end.

On this, Obama has nothing to say. He leaves it entirely to the scientists. This is more than moral [... moral indignation snipped]
But as we can see from what the Obama administration actually does, Krauthammer's fearsome fantasies have not materialized.
source: washington post today
The Obama administration today is announcing guidelines for government-sponsored embryonic stem cell research but the draft regulations would limit federal funding of work on human embryos donated at fertility clinics.

The guidelines being issued by the National Institutes of Health open the door for a vast expansion of the research, but stop short of allowing scientists to create human embryos for research purposes or pursuing cloning techniques.
 Proving again that criticizing someone for your own fantasies is a risky proposition.


Mark de LA says
seth 2009-04-17 11:00:36 4933
source: MR above, quotes Krauthammer ...
I suggested the bright line prohibiting the deliberate creation of human embryos solely for the instrumental purpose of research -- a clear violation of the categorical imperative not to make a human life (even if only a potential human life) a means rather than an end.

On this, Obama has nothing to say. He leaves it entirely to the scientists. This is more than moral [... moral indignation snipped]
But as we can see from what the Obama administration actually does, Krauthammer's fearsome fantasies have not materialized.
source: washington post today
The Obama administration today is announcing guidelines for government-sponsored embryonic stem cell research but the draft regulations would limit federal funding of work on human embryos donated at fertility clinics.

The guidelines being issued by the National Institutes of Health open the door for a vast expansion of the research, but stop short of allowing scientists to create human embryos for research purposes or pursuing cloning techniques.
 Proving again that criticizing someone for your own fantasies is a risky proposition.

Finally, a month+ later, the administration has something to say (still only characterized by pundits & so-called reporters). Will withhold judgement till it is actually posted on the NIH website.  Perhaps Krauthammer's concerns caused somebody to stir. If you see somebody about to jump off a metaphorical cliff are you going to wait until he is actually falling in the abyss before you stir to action?
P.S. your bad example doesn't invalidate Krauthammer's commentary today, BTW.

See Also

  1. Thought about: what secularism is and where it needs to be headed | the wire with 21 viewings related by tag "church and state".
  2. Thought about: Biohackers are using CRISPR on their DNA and we can't stop it | New Scientist with 19 viewings related by tag "Biology".
  3. Thought about: 3D Animation of HIV Infection with 8 viewings related by tag "biology".
  4. Thought Do we want to keep the America government secular? with 5 viewings related by tag "church and state".
  5. Thought Privacy is antithetical to the semantic web with 5 viewings related by tag "biology".
  6. Thought I will spend my $$ elsewhere than with these celebs with 3 viewings related by tag "stem cells".
  7. Thought Political Campaigns, Straw men, and Hyocracy with 3 viewings related by tag "stem cells".
  8. Thought about: the great theft: wrestling islam from the extremists with 2 viewings related by tag "church and state".
  9. Thought How to Hold a Very Large Conversation & Actually Get Somewhere? with 2 viewings related by tag "rational inquiry".
  10. Thought Motility with 1 viewings related by tag "biology".
  11. Thought about: Mitosis: An Interactive Animation with 1 viewings related by tag "biology".
  12. Thought about: I am creating artificial life, declares US gene pioneer with 0 viewings related by tag "biology".
  13. Thought about: mitotic cell division - youtube with 0 viewings related by tag "biology".
  14. Thought about: genomixer by stanza...........we are code with 0 viewings related by tag "biology".
  15. Thought Cell Mitosis with 0 viewings related by tag "biology".
  16. Thought Marriage with 0 viewings related by tag "rational inquiry".
  17. Thought Nice Embryo Development Pages with 0 viewings related by tag "stem cells".
  18. Thought Embryonic Stem Cell Debate with 0 viewings related by tag "stem cells".
  19. Thought Separation of Church & State is sometimes a Bitch with 0 viewings related by tag "church and state".
  20. Thought a Mirror Neuron fireing with 0 viewings related by tag "biology".
  21. Thought about: The Gaia Hypothesis with 0 viewings related by tag "biology".
  22. Thought about: Animation of processes inside living cells with 0 viewings related by tag "biology".
  23. Thought The Drone Affair with 0 viewings related by tag "rational inquiry".
  24. Thought Bush's proclamation ... with 0 viewings related by tag "church and state".
  25. Thought Life Is Sublime with 0 viewings related by tag "biology".